UK Borders Bill

I thank the Minister for his very courteous and characteristically full reply to this interesting debate. I thank also all those who participated. I hope that the Committee and the Minister will be bear with me if I try to comment fully on some of his comments. I say at the outset that I appreciate the way in which the Minister has been with us for long hours over a number of sittings. He always listens very carefully and tries to respond thoroughly to the points made. There was a certain amount of controversy before we adopted a Grand Committee system. I did not share that feeling because, at its best, this system provides us with a good opportunity. If there is good will and genuineness on both sides, and before everyone gets into a too entrenched and overly defined position, the Minister is able to go away and genuinely think deeply about some of the arguments put forward. He can then come back with a considered and, we hope, constructive response at Report stage. In some ways, belatedly, this procedure covers what I would like to see far more of—pre-legislative scrutiny. I very much appreciate the points made by other Members of the Committee. The Minister talked about how the Government’s good will was well established by signing the convention and how ratification was another matter. Indeed, as I know Mr Vernon Coaker knows himself, the Government’s position is well expressed in the view that we feel that ratification is appropriate only when we are sure that everything is in place to make it a real measure. That is an important argument which I for one take seriously. We do not want gestures that are quickly shown to be no more than that. The process of getting things in place can, however, become terribly extended. I was a Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe when we originally discussed the convention, and the anxiety was building up. I was very much identified with those who were pushing for the convention. I was always totally convinced that the United Kingdom would be in the vanguard of support for this measure. Indeed, I am reassured by repeated government statements, the terms of which show that the Government regard as reprehensible the whole business of trafficking. However, it was difficult to explain to colleagues and others in the Council of Europe why it took so long for the UK Government to reach the point of signing. Now there is just bewilderment at how long they are taking to ratify. It would be helpful if the Government could at least establish a target date by which they intend to ratify. I point out that I was in government some years ago. That would give all involved a sense of discipline as regards getting the pieces in place and reviewing what has happened, and would give them a deadline against which to work. Otherwise, unintentionally, the psychology of institutions becomes a rationalisation process, which just means that delay goes on and on and on. Ministers should make it clear exactly when they want to ratify. That brings me to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I assure him that the Joint Committee shares his anxieties. Our report stated that we were disappointed at the lack of a clear timetable for implementing the Government’s action plan on trafficking and all the requirements of the convention against trafficking. We welcome the Minister’s offer to provide us on Report with regular updates on the timetable and the Government’s progress against that timetable. So there is a sort of undertaking by the Government which we need to encourage them to fulfil.